📅 Original date posted:2016-03-12
📝 Original message:Replying to the "fee" part of BIP75 (which as already noted should go to
a different BIP number imho):
It makes to sense to let the payee define a fee *rate*. The payee
doesn't know anything about how the payer's wallet is structured. In
extreme cases, as a payer I would keep all my tiny UTXOs (which would be
unspendable in a economic way) for the one payee who is willing to pay a
high enough rate...
Rather, I propose an absolute amount that the payee is willing to cover
should be declared.
Also, in order to avoid disputes I suggest the amount should be deducted
from the BIP70 payment message amount already. A wallet which
understands BIP75fee would add these two up for *display* puposes only.
The wallet should continue to use the existing fee policies. If it can
send the amount as specified by BIP70 and the fee is below the BIP75fee
amount, it would not mention any fees to the user. If it exceeds, it
would display just the exceeding amount.
On 03/11/2016 11:43 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think we would be open to either leaving them in, or doing a separate
> BIP. What do others think? I’d prefer to keep them together if the
> changes are non-controversial just to cut down on #of BIP’s, but thats
> not a strong preference.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP with
> other extensions. Other extensions should go to separate BIPs,
> especially since methods to clarify the fee have nothing to do with
> secure and authenticated bi-directional BIP70 communication.
>
>
> On 03/10/2016 10:43 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Our BIP (officially proposed on March 1) has tentatively been assigned
> > number 75. Also, the title has been changed to "Out of Band Address
> > Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption" to be more accurate.
> >
> > We thought it would be good to take this opportunity to add some
> > optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new
> fields are:
> > subtractable fee (give permission to the sender to use some of the
> > requested amount towards the transaction fee), fee per kb (the minimum
> > fee required to be accepted as zeroconf), and replace by fee
> (whether or
> > not a transaction with the RBF flag will be accepted with zeroconf). I
> > know it doesn't make much sense for merchants to accept RBF with
> > zeroconf, so that last one might be used more to explicitly refuse RBF
> > transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting based on
> > who you are transacting with).
> >
> > I see BIP75 as a general modernization of BIP70, so I think it
> should be
> > fine to include these extensions in the new BIP, even though these
> > fields are not specific to the features we are proposing. Please
> take a
> > look at the relevant section and let me know if anyone has any
> concerns:
> >
> https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails
> >
> > The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Justin W. Newton
> Founder/CEO
> Netki, Inc.
>
> justin at netki.com <mailto:justin at netki.com>
> +1.818.261.4248 <tel:+1.818.261.4248>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xg…adsv7
2023-06-07 17:49:52
in reply to nevent1q…tp7x
Author Public Key
npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7Published at
2023-06-07 17:49:52Event JSON
{
"id": "d80cb4f69147202b9abab099275a8048e136680ea3ecc30f316cdd52ab170db2",
"pubkey": "3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc",
"created_at": 1686160192,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d162123e913c99417014774eaac602746d432edef71d022963d4efa0d0cd2223",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"53661662d9bb8e5d5494fe32b54229f6dc937fe889105faea18c3bafe9a4e362",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2a007275f8708d857e3fc6523dad0fcbe5c6a5a1f53043352053a1048838b0d7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-03-12\n📝 Original message:Replying to the \"fee\" part of BIP75 (which as already noted should go to\na different BIP number imho):\n\nIt makes to sense to let the payee define a fee *rate*. The payee\ndoesn't know anything about how the payer's wallet is structured. In\nextreme cases, as a payer I would keep all my tiny UTXOs (which would be\nunspendable in a economic way) for the one payee who is willing to pay a\nhigh enough rate...\n\nRather, I propose an absolute amount that the payee is willing to cover\nshould be declared.\n\nAlso, in order to avoid disputes I suggest the amount should be deducted\nfrom the BIP70 payment message amount already. A wallet which\nunderstands BIP75fee would add these two up for *display* puposes only.\nThe wallet should continue to use the existing fee policies. If it can\nsend the amount as specified by BIP70 and the fee is below the BIP75fee\namount, it would not mention any fees to the user. If it exceeds, it\nwould display just the exceeding amount.\n\n\n\n\nOn 03/11/2016 11:43 PM, Justin Newton via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I think we would be open to either leaving them in, or doing a separate\n\u003e BIP. What do others think? I’d prefer to keep them together if the\n\u003e changes are non-controversial just to cut down on #of BIP’s, but thats\n\u003e not a strong preference.\n\u003e \n\u003e On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e I think it's a bad idea to pollute the original idea of this BIP with\n\u003e other extensions. Other extensions should go to separate BIPs,\n\u003e especially since methods to clarify the fee have nothing to do with\n\u003e secure and authenticated bi-directional BIP70 communication.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On 03/10/2016 10:43 PM, James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Hi everyone,\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Our BIP (officially proposed on March 1) has tentatively been assigned\n\u003e \u003e number 75. Also, the title has been changed to \"Out of Band Address\n\u003e \u003e Exchange using Payment Protocol Encryption\" to be more accurate.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e We thought it would be good to take this opportunity to add some\n\u003e \u003e optional fields to the BIP70 paymentDetails message. The new\n\u003e fields are:\n\u003e \u003e subtractable fee (give permission to the sender to use some of the\n\u003e \u003e requested amount towards the transaction fee), fee per kb (the minimum\n\u003e \u003e fee required to be accepted as zeroconf), and replace by fee\n\u003e (whether or\n\u003e \u003e not a transaction with the RBF flag will be accepted with zeroconf). I\n\u003e \u003e know it doesn't make much sense for merchants to accept RBF with\n\u003e \u003e zeroconf, so that last one might be used more to explicitly refuse RBF\n\u003e \u003e transactions (and allow the automation of choosing a setting based on\n\u003e \u003e who you are transacting with).\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I see BIP75 as a general modernization of BIP70, so I think it\n\u003e should be\n\u003e \u003e fine to include these extensions in the new BIP, even though these\n\u003e \u003e fields are not specific to the features we are proposing. Please\n\u003e take a\n\u003e \u003e look at the relevant section and let me know if anyone has any\n\u003e concerns:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e https://github.com/techguy613/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki#Extending_BIP70_PaymentDetails\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e The BIP70 extensions page in our fork has also been updated.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Thanks!\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e James\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e \n\u003e Justin W. Newton\n\u003e Founder/CEO\n\u003e Netki, Inc.\n\u003e \n\u003e justin at netki.com \u003cmailto:justin at netki.com\u003e\n\u003e +1.818.261.4248 \u003ctel:+1.818.261.4248\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e",
"sig": "19723e0307c797178abf25fba53232a76e2ccfa4e71ba90a16f7280bbf061471a1a2d1eb1a8a69cb6c48c5bb07cf23a7fdca87cc0df7337ed6f3aa89a1ab30c2"
}